E 302 
.6 
.F8 






FRANKLIN'S CEREMONIAL COAT 



BY 



RICHARD MEADE BACHE. 



Reprinted from The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, 
January, 1900. 



FRANKLIN'S CEREMONIAL COAT 



BY 

RICHARD MEADE BACHE. 



Reprinted from The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, 
January, 1900, 



PHILADELPHIA. 
1900. 







aP^'-' 



\:l'5o^ 



Bob. AS^miox 
Mar 28 00 



FKANKLIN'S CEREMONIAL COAT. 



Probably no case of dress, not even that of Napoleon's 
daily renewed small-clothes, nor of Prince Esterhazy's 
diamond-besprent diplomatic coat, has received more fre- 
quent mention than that as to whether or not Dr. Franklin 
wore a certain dress on two certain formal occasions, and if 
he did, whether or not the dress was worn on the second 
occasion with any significance beyond ceremonial intention. 
Immediately after the treaty of peace with Great Britain 
the charge was rife that, at its signing, Franklin had worn 
the dress in exultation over the British failure to subjugate 
the Colonies. Even down to the present time the majority 
of persons who know anything about the matter, unaware 
that another dress was worn on that occasion, believe the 
dress in question to have been then worn, and with the 
express purpose of signalizing British defeat. 

The point is, to say the least, interesting, because it also 
incidentally involves another question, that as to whether or 
not Franklin wore the dress in defiance at the signing of 
the treaty of alliance between the United States and France. 
It is, moreover, too important a point, both biographically 
and historically, to have remained unsettled to the present 
day, now over a hundred years. The fact is that those of 
opposing beliefs have unwittingly had in mind a diflnerent 
occasion for the second one. Obviously, discussion of the 
question as to whether or not there was significance in 
wearing a certain dress on the second of two related occa- 
sions could reach no sane conclusion if views difiered as to 
what was the second one on which it was worn. 

The two occasions which will be here demonstrated to 
have been actual ones are, first, that on which Franklin was 
attacked in most unseemly fashion before King George the 



4 Franklin's Ceremonial Coat, 

Third's Privy Council, on January 29, 1774, by the King's 
Solicitor-General, Mr. "Wedderburn, for having transmitted 
to America, for the information of his patriot friends in 
Boston, what are known to the history of the times as the 
" Hutchinson Letters ;" and, second, the occasion on which 
he, jointly with his fellow-commissioners of the United 
States, signed at Paris the treaties of commerce and alli- 
ance, on February 6, 1778, between the United States and 
France. The celebrated Dr. Joseph Priestley, the well- 
known Dr. Edward Bancroft, the renowned orator Edmund 
Burke, and many other distinguished men were present at 
the proceedings before the Privy Council. Dr. Priestley 
says, in the course of his account of them, — 

" When he [Franklin] attended there [at the Privy Council], he was 
dressed in a suit of Manchester velvet ; and Silas Deane told me that, 
when they met in Paris to sign the treaty [treaties] between France and 
America, he purposely put on that suit," 

Dr. Bancroft, as reported by William Temple Franklin, 
Dr. Franklin's grandson, says, in speaking of the same 
occasion, — 

" The Doctor was dressed in a full dress suit of spotted Manchester 
velvet, and stood conspicuously erect, without the smallest movement of 
any part of his body." 

These two eye-witnesses of the scene at the Privy Council 
therefore describe in general terms the character of the stuff 
of the dress worn by Franklin on that occasion. But, be- 
sides that, one of them. Dr. Priestley, it will have been 
observed, cites Silas Deane, a fellow-commissioner of 
Franklin's in France, as having told him that the Doctor 
had purposely worn the same suit when, later, the treaties 
between America and France were signed ; and more than 
that, again, the other. Dr. Bancroft, who was himself present 
on both occasions, informs William Temple Franklin, as 
will presently appear, as to the conclusion drawn by himself 
personally with reference to Franklin's latent intention in 
wearing the costume on the seqynd occasion. The follow- 



Franklin^s Ceremonial Coat. 5 

ing account of Dr. Bancroft to William Temple Franklin 
is therefore trebly conclusive, as representing his own per- 
sonal observation, and as confirming not only the obser- 
vation of Dr. Priestley with reference to the particular 
dress at the Privy Council, but also that of Mr. Deane with 
reference to the dress and the significance of wearing it at 
the signing of the treaties with France, 

" It is a fact that he [Franklin], as Dr. Priestley mentions, signed the 
treaties of commerce and eventual alliance with France in the clothes 
which he had worn at the Cockpit, when the preceding transaction oc- 
curred [the meeting of the Privy Council] . It had been intended, you 
may recollect [Dr. Bancroft is informing William Temple Franklin], 
that these treaties should be signed on the evening of Thursday, the 5th 
of February ; and when Dr. Franklin had dressed himself for the day, 
I observed that he wore the suit in question ; which I thought the more 
extraordinary, as it had been laid aside for many months. This I 
noticed to Mr. Deane, and soon after, when a messenger came from 
Versailles, with a letter from Mr. Gerard, the French plenipotentiary, 
stating that he was so unwell from a cold, that he wished to defer 
coming to Paris to sign the treaties, until the next evening, I said to Mr. 
Deane, ' Let us see whether the Doctor will wear the same suit of clothes 
to-morrow ; if he does, I shall suspect that he is influenced by a recol- 
lection of the treatment which he received at the Cockpit.' The morrow 
came, and the same clothes were again worn, and the treaties signed. 
After which these clothes were laid aside, and so far as my knowledge 
extends, never worn afterwards. I once intimated to Dr. Franklin the 
suspicion which his wearing these clothes on that occasion had excited 
in my mind, when he smiled without telling me whether it was well or 
ill founded. I have heard him sometimes say, that he was not insensible 
to injuries, but that he never put himself to any trouble or inconvenience 
to retaliate." 

The two occasions to be considered, therefore, indubitably 
are, first, that of the assault, in 1774, upon Franklin before 
the Privy Council ; and, second, that of the simultaneous 
signing, in 1778, of the two treaties between America and 
France after the beginning of the Revolutionary War. Yet 
the following quotation by Mr. Sparks from a letter to the 
English Gentlemaii's Magazine of July, 1785, written by 
a Mr. Whitefoord, shows that many persons then took, as 
others still do, the second notable occasion when Franklin 



6 Franklin's Ceremonial Coat. 

wore the dress to have been, not that of the signing of the 
treaties between America and France, but that of the sub- 
sequent signing of the treaty of peace between America 
and Great Britain. As Mr. Whitefoord was seeking solely 
to refute the statement of persons who imagined that the 
second occasion was that of the signing of the treaty of 
peace between America and Great Britain, and as he him- 
self had been, as a secretary, one of the witnesses to that 
very treaty, he could speak with confidence as to the par- 
ticular point that he maintained, unaware, as his letter 
shows, of what had led to popular misapprehension on the 
subject. As his statement kept strictly to the point before 
him, it is not surprising that it lacks complete elucidation 
of the subject. It is surprising, however, that Mr. Sparks, 
one of the most conscientious, accurate, and able of biog- 
raphers, should have allowed to creep into his " Works of 
Franklin" this contradiction by Mr. Whitefoord of a popu- 
lar error, without coupling with it the statement that, al- 
though Mr. Whitefoord was correct in denying that Frank- 
lin wore the dress in question on the occasion of signing 
the treaty of peace between America and Great Britain, he 
had thereby innocently left the impression that the occur- 
rence of Franklin's significantly wearing a certain dress at 
a treaty-signing never took place at all. 

The following is the note by Mr. Sparks, introducing the 
passage referred to from the Gentleman's Magazine : 

" Lord Brougliam, in his sketcli of the character of Mr. Wedderburn, 
afterwards Lord Loughborough, recently published, has unguardedly- 
repeated a false report respecting the signing of the treaty, which was 
circulated soon after that event, but promptly refuted. In alluding to 
Mr. Wedderburn's abusive speech against Dr. Franklin before the Privy 
Council, Lord Brougham says, ' It is well known that, when the ambas- 
sadors were met to sign the peace of Versailles, by which the indepen- 
dence of America was acknowledged, Franklin retired, in order to change 
his dress and affix his name to the treaty in those garments which he 
wore when attending the Privy Council, and which he had kept by him 
for the purpose many years.' This statement is entirely erroneous. The 
report was fabricated in England at a time when the treaty was the topic 
of vehement discussion ; and it was eagerly seized upon to gratify the 
malevolence of a disappointed party. When it appeared in prints it was 



Franklin's Ceremonial Coat. 7 

immediately contradicted by Mr. Whitefoord, who was present at the 
signing of the treaty, and affixed his name to it as the secretary of the 
English commissioner. ' This absurd story,' says Mr. Whitefoord, ' has 
no foundation but in the imagination of the inventor. He supposes that 
the act of signing the peace took place at the house of Dr. Franklin [at 
Passy, near Paris] . The fact is otherwise ; the conferences were held, 
and the treaty was signed, at the hotel of the British commissioner, 
wkere Dr. Franklin and the other American commissioners gave their 
attendance for that purpose. The court of Versailles having at that 
time gone into mourning for the death of some German prince, the Doc- 
tor, of course, was dressed in a suit of black cloth; and it is in the recol- 
lection of the writer of this, and also he believes of many other people, 
that when the memorable philippic was pronounced against Dr. Frank- 
lin, in the Privy Council, he was dressed in a suit of figured Manchester 
velvet." 

Mr. Sparks, I say, overlooked the fact that this note, in 
his first volume^ of the "Works of Franklin," is, through 
default of comment by him, incongruous with the main 
text in his fourth volume.^ The omission in the note in- 
volves the injustice to himself of the implication that he 
was unaware of the facts of the case, whereas the facts of 
the case, in the proceedings before the Privy Council and all 
matter relevant to the subsequent French treaty, are elab- 
orately set forth by him. His account proves that what has 
sometimes been erroneously represented as happening at 
one of the two treaty-signings, really happened at the 
other. The second signal occasion on which Franklin ap- 
peared in the dress under consideration was, as Mr. Sparks 
himself describes it, when he signed the treaties of com- 
merce and alliance between America and France, not when 
he signed the treaty of peace with Great Britain. Clearly, 
the report of Franklin's having worn that dress when he 
signed the treaty of peace with Great Britain must have 
grown out of reports of Franklin's action when the treaties 
with France were signed. 

The pieces of cloth believed to have belonged to the coat 
of this suit (for tradition says nothing of small-clothes to 
correspond) were divided many years ago among some of 

1 Vol. I. p. 488. 

^ Vol. IV. pp. 441 to 455, both inclusive. 



8 Franhlinh Ceremonial Coat. 

Franklin's descendants. They would seem, without doubt, 
to represent pieces of the coat described by the three per- 
sons already cited; the same as also described by Madame 
Campan, as of " brown cloth," the same mentioned by 
Madame du Defland as "?)iorrfor^ [reddish-brownj velvet." 
These descriptions of it tally in a general way with those of 
Dr. Priestley, Dr. Bancroft, and Mr. Whitefoord, in de- 
scribing the dress as made of " Manchester velvet, spotted 
Manchester velvet, and figured Manchester velvet." The 
descriptions of Mesdames Campan and du Detfand, how- 
ever, introduce the idea of color, which those gentlemen do 
not mention. A lady who has lately looked at a piece of 
the cloth reputed to have belonged to the coat describes it 
to me as " a sort of red-brown corduroy." 

It only remains, then, in order to avoid assuming here 
that the pieces of cloth extant are actually portions of the 
coat worn by Franklin on the two memorable occasions 
mentioned, to summarize the evidence pointing to the fact 
that they are really such. First of all, family tradition, 
over the brief space of only five generations, can hardly be 
at fault in so regarding them. Then, again, the character 
of the stuff" of the pieces, the largest of which now lies be- 
fore me, accords with the previous description of Frank- 
lin's dress by the persons of his time. That character is 
resolvable into the appearance covered by the terms '^ cor- 
duroy, velvet, reddish-brown." The face of the piece before 
me exhibits parallel lines of a reddish-brown, flufify, cordu- 
roy-like ribbing laid upon a heavy, rich background of 
golden lustre. These lines of velvet pile being just an 
eighth of an inch in width, and the golden hue of the back- 
ground showing between them to a width of only half that, 
the general effect of the fabric is of a rich reddish-brown, 
relieved from sombreness by the delicate golden back- 
ground. The stuff" certainly is not, as Dr. Bancroft de- 
scribed the dress to be, "spotted." But, excluding the 
idea of " spotted" as overwhelmingly discredited by the 
mass of other testimony, we still have his statement that it 
was of " Manchester velvet," and_the testimony of all the 



Franklin's Ceremonial Coat. 9 

other observers cited accords exactly with the appearance of 
this stuff which tradition ascribes as portions of the dress. 
It would seem conclusive, therefore, from this present, com- 
pared with the past, ocular evidence, confirmed by tradi- 
tion, that the pieces of cloth described are portions of the 
veritable dress in which Franklin stood before the Privy 
Council, and in which he also assisted in signing the treaties 
which meant Great Britain's declaration of war against 
France for having become the ally of the United States in 
her struggle for independence and final triumph by force of 
arms. 

Mr. "Whitefoord's letter to the Gentleman's Magazine 
clearly brings out and refutes the charge against Franklin, 
that he had not only worn the suit described at the signing 
of the treaty of peace between America and Great Britain, 
but that he had, in so doing, coincidentally made remarks 
expressive of the significance of his action. Hence his 
letter is headed, " Vindication of Dr. Franklin from a charge 
against him.'" After two short introductory paragraphs, he 
goes on to speak, as follows, of what shows the prevalence 
of the false report regarding Franklin : 

" This absurd story has no foundation but in the imagination of the 
inventor. Until I saw your correspondent's letter, I did not know that 
the story had already appeared in print. It is true, indeed, that I have 
frequently heard it repeated in conversation, and have always treated 
it with the contempt that it deserved ; but your correspondent, 'A Briton^ 
(whose abilities m a writer I respect), has by admitting it into his letter, 
given it a degree of consequence to which it is not otherwise entitled. 
From my opinion of him as a man, I am also disposed to believe that he 
will not persist in circulating a falsehood, knowing it to be such." 

Then come two paragraphs describing Mr. Whitefoord's 
relations to the signing of the treaty, and denying that Dr. 
Franklin had changed his dress on that occasion or uttered 
words attributed to him. The letter then concludes with 
the passage quoted by Mr. Sparks. 

The prevalent misapprehension at the time in England, 
that Franklin had signalized the triumph of his country's 
cause, at the signing of the treaty of peace with Great 



10 FranhUn^s Ceremonial Coat. 

Britain, bj wearing the dress there in which he had been 
insulted before the Lords in Council, showed public igno- 
rance of the character of the man. When the dogs of war 
had been slipped, despite his strenuous efforts for peace, he 
was ready, as he proved himself to be, to go all honorable 
lengths in the prosecution of the war to advantage. He 
had even, in his philosophic way, breathed quiet defiance 
to the enemy at the treaties with France, by w^earing the 
very dress identified in his mind with one of the culmi- 
nating events of which the sequel was war. But the war 
ended, the treaty with Great Britain to be signed, his 
thoughts at once reverted to the pleasantness of the paths 
of enduring peace. His letters of the time prove the fact 
alleged. He had many friends in England, and soon after 
the treaty with her was signed he longed to see them once 
more, and especially Mrs. William Hewson and her mother, 
Mrs. Stevenson, who were the dearest of them all. Ac- 
cordingly he promptly wrote to Mrs. Hewson of his desire 
to cross the Channel to meet the family, to which he also 
had become endeared. But, upon second thoughts, he 
concluded that it were best to postpone his visit, lest his 
appearance then in England might be attributed to his wish 
to triumph over a discomfited opponent. A letter of his, 
of January 27, 1783, to Mrs. Hewson, so clearly portrays 
his feelings, not only for his friends, but for the whole Eng- 
lish people, that I cannot do better than conclude with it as 
bearing upon the whole previous discussion, through his 
sentiments at the time, and upon his whole affectionate 
nature. 

" Passy, 27 January, 1783. 
"... The departure of my dearest friend/ which I learn from your 
last letter, greatly affects me. To meet with her once more in this life 
was one of the principal motives of my proposing to visit England again 
before my return to America. The last year carried off my friends Dr. 
Pringle, Dr. Fothergill, Lord Kames, and Lord le Despencer. This has 
begun to take away the rest, and strikes the hardest. Thus the ties I 
had to that country, and indeed to the world in general, are loosened one 
by one, and I shall soon have no attachment left to make me unwilling 
to follow. 

* The death of Mrs. Stevenson, the mother of Mrs. Hewson. 



Franklin's Ceremonial Coat. 11 

" I intended writing when I sent the eleven books, but I lost the time 
in looking for the twelfth. I wrote with that ; and hope it came to hand. 
I therein asked your counsel about my coming to England. On reflec- 
tion, I think I can, from my knowledge of your prudence, foresee what 
it will be, viz., not to come too soon, lest it should seem braving and 
insulting some who ought to be respected. I shall, therefore, omit that 
journey till I am near going to America, and then just step over to take 
leave of my friends, and spend a few days with you. I propose bring- 
ing Ben with me, and perhaps may leave him under your care.^ 

"At length we are at peace, God be praised, and long, very long, may 
it continue. All wars are follies, very expensive, and very mischievous 
ones. When will mankind be convinced of this, and agree to settle their 
differences by arbitration ? Were they to do it, even by the cast of a 
die, it would be better than by fighting and destroying each other. 

" Spring is coming on, when travelling will be delightful. Can you 
not, when you see your children all at school, make a little party, and 
take a trip hither ? I have now a large house, delightfully situated, in 
which I could accommodate you and two or three friends, and I am but 
half an hour's drive from Paris. 

" In looking forward, twenty-five years seem a long period, but, in look- 
ing back, how short ! Could you imagine, that it is now full a quarter of 
a century since we were first acquainted ? It was in 1757. During the 
greatest part of the time, I lived in the house with my dear deceased 
friend, your mother; of course you and I conversed with each other 
much and often. It is to all our honors, that in all that time we never 
had among us the smallest misunderstanding. Our friendship has been 
all clear sunshine, without the least cloud in its hemisphere. Let me 
conclude by saying to you, what I have had too frequent occasions to say 
to my other remaining old friends, 'The fewer we become, the more let 
us love one another.' Adieu, and believe me ever, yours most affection- 
ately, 

"B. Franklin." 

Franklin's mental attitude, thus revealed by himself, 
proves it to have been impossible that, at the signing of the 
treaty of peace, or at any subsequent period, he could have 
harbored even a thought of exulting over a defeated and 
kindred people. 

^ The visit, in the meaning in Franklin's mind, never took place. On 
the contrary, as it turned out, Mrs. Hewson, with her family, paid a visit 
to him at Passy the winter before his departure from France. Franklin 
stopped at Southampton for a few hours on his way to America. The 
"Ben" of whom he speaks was his grandson, Benjamin Franklin Bache. 



/ 



LIBRftRY OF CONGRESS 
♦ 011 769 907 9^ 




.r 



